[bdery]

The Nikon d7200 has a 1/250th sync speed and it is the same price as the comparable K-3 series..

But lacks, for instance, weather sealing. So there. You can't have everything...

[wombat2go]

You've been reading threads about this subject for years, and have not read a valid reason for people wanting a faster sync speed? Honestly?

Well I would question what more than very limited use for that in a consumer grade camera with a slow moving slit in the focal plane shutter,
and available anyway with a little bit of useable extension by hss mode in the low cost standard flash units.

When a focal plane shutter is set to say 1/3000th sec, it is a bit of a mis-nomer, as the actual transit time across the frame is much slower.
(I posted example in the last thread on this topic)

I just did a search and here (at random) is the spec for a high speed color camera. ( Note the applications)
nac Memrecam HX-7 » High Speed Camera Systems - nac

[shaolen]

so many of the posts are saying "why would you need this" and the reason is moving subjects. For sports and action 1/180 is going to still have some motion blur while 1/250 has a better chance at stopping the action. I first noticed this issue when showing my K-5 to a friend who shoots sports with Canon gear and when he saw the 1/180 sync he immediately went "whoa, that's a bit too slow for what I do". Until that point he was absolutely loving the camera but that's one lost customer and I'm sure theres many many more like him.

---------- Post added 07-16-15 at 06:26 AM ----------

here's a video reviewing the 645Z against hasseblad and mamiya and it shows how the need for flash and faster sync speed can go against penax (I understand that the other cameras in this vid are shooting leaf shutter and faster than 1/250 but theres still a good difference between 1/180 and 1/250)

You Tube

You Tube

---------- Post added 07-16-15 at 06:38 AM ----------

But lacks, for instance, weather sealing. So there. You can't have everything...

But I think they can. Surely it shouldn't cause that big of a price difference. Especially considering as someone mentioned pentax had a shutter capable of 1/250 before. It would be a good investment in my mind

[wombat2go]

here's a video reviewing the 645Z against hasseblad and mamiya and it shows how the need for flash and faster sync speed can go against penax (I understand that the other cameras in this vid are shooting leaf shutter and faster than 1/250 but theres still a good difference between 1/180 and 1/250)

Rough price check:
Pentax $8000
Phase One $40,000
Hasselblad $27,500

[bdery]

But I think they can. Surely it shouldn't cause that big of a price difference.

Everything has a cost. Of course they CAN, but can they do it while still meeting margins that lets them remain profitable enough?

Of course they know how also, but that old shutter from yesteryears cannot be used. The supply chain is probably broken by now, it might not fit in current bodies, the electronic comm might require a PCB redesign, etc.

It's a bit naive to think that old stuff is still available and functional. NASA can send a probe to Pluto but can't build an Apollo anymore.

[fredralphfred]

. . . it might not fit in current bodies . . .

That shutter would be way too big as it was designed for full frame coverage.

(I couldn't resist being a troll there. "Full frame" is not on my list of complaints, which I'm certain are more important than yours.)

Rough price check:
Pentax $8000
Phase One $40,000
Hasselblad $27,500

That's without comparing lens price differences, because each lens has to have a leaf shutter mechanism built into it. Otherwise, you can't shoot above 1/800 flash or no, at least on the Hasselblad. And I'd bet that with the success Pentax has said they've had with their "MF for the masses" that leaf shutter lenses are a priority for them. Pentax decided to design the 645Z to work outside the studio. This doesn't prevent them from offering leaf shutter lenses in the future. The thing I don't understand is why a camera can't have a leaf shutter built-in, but nobody seems to do it.

so many of the posts are saying "why would you need this" and the reason is moving subjects. For sports and action 1/180 is going to still have some motion blur while 1/250 has a better chance at stopping the action. I first noticed this issue when showing my K-5 to a friend who shoots sports with Canon gear and when he saw the 1/180 sync he immediately went "whoa, that's a bit too slow for what I do". Until that point he was absolutely loving the camera but that's one lost customer and I'm sure theres many many more like him. . .

Yeah -- people who want to shoot sports but don't.

1/500 would be an improvement; 1/250 won't freeze the ball after the batter hit it, or let you stop a soccer player in mid-air and see what brand of shoes he just kicked the ball with. You just get a little less blur that makes you wonder what the point is. On-camera flash is not powerful enough. If it was, the shooter would get kicked out of the venue because he'd be blinding half the arena each time he lines up a shot. I've never seen or heard of a serious sports shooter using it. Besides, as far as sports go, sync shutter speed is the least of Pentax's worries. Pentax has greatly improved AF in their recent models, but they still have a long way to go to make AF useful for most sports shooting.

[macman24054]

Almost surely cost vs overall benefit/appeal to their user base is the deterrent.



If you lower your iso by 1 stop and open your aperture by 1 stop, the exposure on the background and subject will stay the same. ISO and aperture affect both ambient and flash equally.

ISO is no substitute for shutter speed when you want to change the relative brightness of flash to ambient.



It's a matter of convenience for me. There are usually workarounds, but I'm often just pushing up against this boundary outside and I'd like the flexibility to step a little more. It's not a deal breaker, but it would be nice.

It's really not much different in people purchasing a FA50/1.4 instead of a FA50/1.7. That extra tiny bit available can be worth having around when you need it, and for these lenses the extra cost and weight of the 1.4 is marginal (ok this lens choice may be a little more complicated as some swear by the FA50/1.7). At the same time you'd be hard pressed to find a photo that was ruined because you could only open up to f/1.7 and not f/1.4.

For flash exposure ISO is a "universal" exposure adjustment. Meaning it affects both ambient and flash exposure. Aperture affects ONLY flash exposure and shutter speed affects ONLY ambient light.

---------- Post added 07-17-15 at 11:49 PM ----------

But lacks, for instance, weather sealing. So there. You can't have everything...

Very well said. And the ongoing expense of buying shake reduction in each lens really adds up.

[UncleVanya]

For flash exposure ISO is a "universal" exposure adjustment. Meaning it affects both ambient and flash exposure. Aperture affects ONLY flash exposure and shutter speed affects ONLY ambient light.

Can you point to a reference, I don't fully get this.

[BrianR]

For flash exposure ISO is a "universal" exposure adjustment. Meaning it affects both ambient and flash exposure. Aperture affects ONLY flash exposure and shutter speed affects ONLY ambient light.

Aperture affects both ambient and flash equally, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Perhaps you could provide an example?

[clackers]

. Aperture affects ONLY flash exposure and shutter speed affects ONLY ambient light.

Hmm, how does the aperture know to let in extra flash light but keep the ambient stuff out, Macman?

[clackers]

. For sports and action 1/180 is going to still have some motion blur while 1/250 has a better chance at stopping the action.

I'd shoot 1/500 to 1/1000 or faster to freeze movement, Shaolen.

Hence, HSS mode on the flash.

[macman24054]

Common knowledge among photographers that use alternate light sources extensively. With ambient light there is only one light to expose for. Thus ISO, shutter and aperture have the exact same effect on exposure. We as the photographer can select the means to adjust exposure based off of the type of subject and depth of field we want. In flash photography you are exposing for 2 light sources. Ambient and flash. Aperture controls flash exposure, shutter controls ambient exposure and iso effects both. I don't know the exact science behind it. I just know that is how it works. If you don't believe this try it for yourself. I have used this knowledge on numerous occasions. It may not seem logical. The idea that the larger and closer a light source is to a subject the softer the light does not seem logical. But that in fact is the case.

[UncleVanya]

Larger and closer removes shadows. That one isn't confusing.

Are you only considering manual flash? If not HSS then your shutter has limited adjustment range so aperture and ISO are your main variables for adjusting the exposure. Since the light of the flash is a short duration you can adjust the ambient light to a degree by changing shutter speed without a lot of flash exposure impact within a range of choices depending on subject movement and synch speed.

So while the blanket statement is a bit overstated I see how within a narrow range that is mostly applicable.

[macman24054]

With ambient light there is only one light to expose for. Thus ISO, shutter and aperture have the exact same effect on exposure. We as the photographer can select the means to adjust exposure based off of the type of subject and depth of field we want. In flash photography you are exposing for 2 light sources. Ambient and flash. Aperture controls flash exposure, shutter controls ambient exposure and iso effects both. I don't know the exact science behind it. I just know that is how it works. If you don't believe this try it for yourself. I have used this knowledge on numerous occasions. It may not seem logical. The idea that the larger and closer a light source is to a subject the softer the light does not seem logical. But that in fact is the case.
There is a very good presentation on this in the B & H You Tube videos. Very well explained and demonstrated.

---------- Post added 07-18-15 at 10:55 AM ----------

Larger and closer removes shadows. That one isn't confusing.

Are you only considering manual flash? If not HSS then your shutter has limited adjustment range so aperture and ISO are your main variables for adjusting the exposure. Since the light of the flash is a short duration you can adjust the ambient light to a degree by changing shutter speed without a lot of flash exposure impact within a range of choices depending on subject movement and synch speed.

So while the blanket statement is a bit overstated I see how within a narrow range that is mostly applicable.

Shooting in manual, shutter priority and aperture priority it is possible to do this. I do it with the Pentax 360 flash unit. It won't work in x mode. With flash photography you can shoot faster subjects at a slower shutter speed than shooting with ambient light. Since the aperture exposes for the flash and the flash duration is much faster than 1/180 then you can to an extent "freeze motion". It is the same principal in using high speed sync in outdoor portrait shooting. You are attempting to under expose the sun as to not have as many bright highlights. If what I am saying is not possible, how can you shoot hight speed sync in full day light and make the background black while your subject that is exposed by the flash the only visible thing in your photo. Flash photography is great creative tool that requires much practice. That is why few are really good at flash photography. It can be frustrating and requires much work. Not saying I have mastered it but I am working on it.

[BrianR]

Common knowledge among photographers that use alternate light sources extensively. With ambient light there is only one light to expose for. Thus ISO, shutter and aperture have the exact same effect on exposure. We as the photographer can select the means to adjust exposure based off of the type of subject and depth of field we want. In flash photography you are exposing for 2 light sources. Ambient and flash. Aperture controls flash exposure, shutter controls ambient exposure and iso effects both. I don't know the exact science behind it. I just know that is how it works. If you don't believe this try it for yourself. I have used this knowledge on numerous occasions. It may not seem logical.

I would be one of those who use (manual) flash nearly all the time, and combine with ambient frequently. ISO and aperture have always behaved exactly the same way on the flash exposure as they do with the ambient. Please provide examples of what you're trying to get across, maybe you have some semi-auto controls compensating something, but on the surface what you're saying is off.

The idea that the larger and closer a light source is to a subject the softer the light does not seem logical. But that in fact is the case.

This is totally logical if you think about what a soft vs hard light source means (rate of transition from light areas to the dark areas) and the angles of the light hitting your subject for a large vs small light source. Good book to read if you care about the why of this sort of thing - Light, Science, and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting.